Sunday Age columnist

IN MID-2008 one of the world's most sought-after celebrity couples was Greg Norman and Chris Evert. Newly married, they'd jetted off to a secret location to honeymoon away from paparazzi and no one knew where they were. But I did - they were staying a few doors away from my family and me in South Africa's Kruger National Park.

This created an ethical dilemma on a couple of levels. I was then editing a large-selling local tabloid and knew that a picture of the Australian golfing great and the American tennis champ on their honeymoon safari would most days be page one material.

Then there was dilemma two: I counted as a friend the editor of the world's most profitable celebrity magazine, the New York-based People; in fact, I'd worked there myself and knew how the celebrity photo market operated. A few good shots of an ''it'' couple could command up to $50,000, even $100,000, and I'd probably be able to demand 50 per cent of any on-sales to other outlets around the world - meaning I could have used the proceeds to pay for our South African holiday many times over.

But I didn't take one picture of the couple, even though I had numerous opportunities. I got on with my travels and the newlyweds got on with their honeymoon, which, sadly, didn't save the marriage from being short-lived. I decided they had gone to an awful lot of trouble to escape the glare of publicity, had a reasonable expectation of privacy and I should respect that. Besides, I didn't want to disrupt my precious family holiday.

Advertisement

So the famous couple escaped the glare of publicity for a week, which must have been a relief. In that sense they were lucky the editor of Woman's Day wasn't holidaying nearby. If she had been, based on recent public comments and her purchase of controversial Kate Middleton pictures that are due to be published here on Monday, the Norman-Evert honeymoon would have been magazine fodder around the world.

An Italian gossip title has already published the controversial pictures of a bikini-clad Middleton, baby bump prominent, frolicking in the Caribbean with her board-shorted husband, Prince William. The high-profile rich regularly repair to the island of Mustique because it's supposed to afford them privacy. Clearly the unidentified photographer and Woman's Day don't see it as a sanctuary.

''These are certainly not photos that they would disapprove of,'' said Fiona Connolly, editor of the Australian magazine, adding: ''They are happy.''

It's certainly true the royal couple look happy in the pictures - even though Woman's Day paid a reported $150,000 for them, some can be located pretty quickly on the internet - but that doesn't mean they support publication. It's nonsense to suggest one begets the other, as evidenced by a statement from St James' Palace. ''We are disappointed that photographs of the Duke and Duchess on a private holiday look likely to be published overseas,'' it read. ''This is a clear breach of the couple's right to privacy.''

But is it? Connolly believes not, arguing the pair were on a public beach and other bathers were present. Besides, the pictures were taken by another holidaymaker, not a paparazzo. Her arguments have some merit, but they're not compelling: on Mustique all beaches are deemed private and the royal couple had gone to great lengths to holiday there; the nature of the photographer is a red herring.

Connolly also advanced a public-interest argument, but that doesn't hold up either. The photographs of Middleton, she said, should be celebrated because they showed the Duchess ''fit and healthy'', unlike ''the last time we saw Kate looking really unwell, coming out of hospital and at a really tough time for her in her pregnancy''. It was a nice try, but conveniently ignored two recent public appearances by the Duchess in which she looked quite robust.

Connolly tried a third tack and was more persuasive. ''The photos are what our readers want to see,'' she said. In other words, there's no public interest being served here, but the public - at least, those that read Woman's Day - are interested. So, give 'em what they want - as the editor of a mass market title she has to.

Of course, arguments rage on both sides of such publications: many, like me, believe that even the most prominent celebrities are entitled to some privacy; but just as many would say that if you're married to a future king of England and you prance around pregnant in a bikini on a beach shared by others, there's a fair chance you'll be photographed.

There's some weight to that argument, too, but there's an inescapable caveat: Having hounded Prince William's mother, Diana, it seems especially unfair that celeb snappers and magazines are now doing it to his wife.

My old boss at People, Norman Pearlstine, used to say that readers get the magazines they deserve. If people want to stop the hounding of Kate Middleton, they should stop buying the magazines that promote it. The rest will continue to buy them. In large numbers, I suspect.